N In *Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik*. 1916
(August 4, 1916) (Volume 42, Issue 1). Article: [author's name] "Trade Union Movement in 1915"... Section "The Ideology of Professional Unions"... Two tendencies not covered by reformism and radicalism. *Korrespondenzblatt* respectively *Sozialistische Monatshefte*.

"On the contrary, there exist only a few trade union journals that clearly express other, more radical views. These are in most cases organs of unions whose members consist chiefly of unskilled workers or women" (325)...

..."For the organs of the old large trade unions stand entirely on the side of the majority, while the rest conduct themselves much more reservedly. Definitive statements in favor of the viewpoint and tactics of the minority, so far as we can observe, were not made" (327)...

Regarding the metalworkers' union, the author notes that the leadership is on the side of the majority, that wages in this profession are higher (330), fewer conscripted*, that this is an old and very large trade union, "which has always served as a bulwark for moderate views," that at the general assembly of June 30, 1915... an indirect quasi-censure of the leadership was passed: "The adoption of this proposal indicates, in any case, that different views and sentiments prevail among the trade union masses than among the leadership" (332)...

There is forming, it seems, among the upper echelons a "petty bourgeois layer" (335)...

The *Korrespondenzblatt* (April 17, 1915) declares the struggle against imperialism to be as absurd as the destruction of machines.

* Reference is made to those conscripted for military service. Ed.

729

INDIVIDUAL NOTES 1912-1916

The same source censures the majority in the professional organizations of France and England (the same as itself), which provokes a caustic remark from the bourgeois author:

"Thus, one cannot say that the right tendency in Germany has altogether completely ceased to understand radical working-class politics" (338).

In fact, admits the author, the majority are already no longer socialists (p. 340 and in other places).